Comment by thaumaturgy
9 years ago
Matthew Prince is asking for a conversation to begin on establishing policy for supporting free speech vs. policing a service. Service providers of all kinds have been more-or-less flying by the seat of their pants on this issue, making up policy according to their individual ideals, and a lot of arguments so far have fallen along ideological lines.
As more and more people continue to participate in the internet, there are going to be more issues like this, not fewer.
So let's maybe kick off that discussion a little bit? Someone that's articulate might be able to build the foundation for a policy here that would be attractive to lots of service providers.
Some things to consider:
-> Local law vs. ethical considerations. A lot of expressions and statements that are just fine by US standards are illegal or otherwise censored in other place. Google has struggled with this in China for years now. There's no reason to believe that the US will continue to be a beacon for free speech forever. Efforts to control, surveil, and censor speech are ongoing in the US, as Dreamhost recently pointed out. How should services handle this? Do you adhere to local laws or to what you believe is right?
-> Free speech vs. abuse. In this case, I don't mean abuse-by-meanness, but abuse by misuse of resources. From blatant spamming all the way down to just being the loud-mouthed jerk who posts too often in a forum, there's a whole spectrum of abuses here and most service providers happily block this content. What constitutes abuse? Should everything be supported, to the best of the service provider's ability, or is this a point where nearly everyone agrees that free speech should be limited?
-> Free speech vs. disruptive or disgusting speech. Communities gather assholes. Some of them are accidental or ill (HN has its own, which it has merrily perma-banned), some of them just want to stir shit up. Some of them give us something to think about, they just want to be really abrasive in the process. What are the limits here? What if we end up on the wrong side of some issue, what would our opinions about limited speech be then?
-> Nice vs. Free. These all kind of could be distilled down into a single debate: do we want a nice society, or a free society?
-> slippery slope vs whataboutism vs sanity: can we, for just a moment, not pretend that we're unable to distinguish between self-professed nazis calling for the extermination of jews and blacks, and legitimate speech in opposition of the government?
Yes, if you're drawing a line there will be, by definition, cases close to it, on both sides. But this isn't one of them. And it's not like this is some sort of new problem that we haven't successfully navigated before. Courts have always had to make binary decisions from continuous facts: pornography vs. art, or just naming that single grain of sand that makes this stretch of coast a beach per California regulation 343 etc.
"Free vs nice" is an insidious way to delegitimise the concerns of those actually targeted by torch-wielding nazis. People aren't asking for a "nice" country. They're asking for the freedom to peacefully walk around without the fear of being splattered onto the pavement by the next terrorist's car attack.